IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60754

Summary Calendar

RONY DAVID OSEJO-ROMERO, also known as Araceli Osejo Romero,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 880 913

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Department of Homeland Security charged Rony David OsejoRomero (a/k/a Araceli Osejo-Romero)1, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

with being subject to removal as an alien present in the United States 

illegally. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(1). Osejo-Romero admitted the 

charge and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on the basis of membership in 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 Osejo-Romero was born male and now identifies as a transgender woman.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60754 Document: 00514009292 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2017
No. 15-60754

2

a particular social group. After the immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Osejo-Romero’s appeal on 

the merits. We now deny Osejo-Romero’s petition for review of the BIA’s 

decision. 

The BIA ruled that Osejo-Romero, who once worked as an investigator 

with Honduran law enforcement, is not entitled to asylum on the basis of past 

persecution or because of a well-founded fear of future prosecution. The BIA 

held that past persecution was not shown by the threats to and surveillance of 

Osejo-Romero by Los Pirras, a criminal gang, and by the discrimination and 

isolated incidents of abuse Osejo-Romero encountered as a gay male in 

Honduras. Additionally, the BIA agreed with the IJ that the fact that police 

officers made Osejo-Romero feel uncomfortable was insufficient to constitute 

persecution and that, in any event, there was no evidence that corrupt police 

officers knew that Osejo-Romero had reported them. The record does not 

establish that Osejo-Romero was subjected to extreme conduct. See Majd v. 

Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 

187 n.4 (5th Cir. 2004). We conclude that the evidence does not compel a 

finding of past persecution, and thus there is no reversible error by the BIA 

regarding this claim. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n.4 (5th 

Cir.1997). The BIA’s ruling is based on the evidence presented and is 

substantially reasonable. Ortunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th 

Cir.2002); see also Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). 

We also reject Osejo-Romero’s contention that the BIA applied a 

heightened, incorrect burden of proof when it rejected the appeal of the denial 

of asylum based on a fear of future persecution by requiring a showing of a 

probability of future persecution rather than a mere possibility of it. Our 

reading of the BIA’s decision convinces us that the BIA was aware of and 

applied the right standard, namely, that an asylum application based on a

 Case: 15-60754 Document: 00514009292 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2017
No. 15-60754

3

well-founded fear of persecution requires only a showing that a reasonable 

person in the applicant’s circumstances would fear persecution if removed. See

Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994). Additionally, nothing in the 

record compels a conclusion that Osejo-Romero was indeed entitled to asylum 

based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 

344. As already shown, Osejo-Romero failed to show past persecution, and 

points to nothing showing that anything worse would happen in the future; 

Petitioner’s subjective fear of persecution is not, therefore, objectively 

reasonable. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 189. As the BIA’s ruling is based on the 

evidence and is substantially reasonable, this claim does not support appellate 

relief. See Ortunez-Tursios, 303 F.3d at 350.

The claim for withholding of removal fails as well; Osejo-Romero does 

not show that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could 

fail to find a clear probability of future persecution. See Ontunez-Tursios, 303 

F.3d at 351; Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006). The clear 

probability standard requires Osejo-Romero to make “a higher objective 

likelihood of persecution than that required” to prevail on an asylum 

application. Chen, 470 F.3d at 1138. Because the evidence does not compel 

the conclusion that Osejo-Romero has satisfied even “the lower objective 

standard for asylum,” it necessarily follows that withholding of removal is 

unavailable. Id.

We review the BIA’s factual determination that an alien is not eligible 

for CAT relief for substantial evidence. Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Osejo-Romero

points to no evidence of personally being tortured in Honduras or that same 

will happen upon return, and none is apparent from the record. Conclusory 

assertions do not compel a conclusion different from that of the BIA. See Chen, 

470 F.3d at 1134.

PETITION DENIED.

 Case: 15-60754 Document: 00514009292 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2017